I'm just making this up, but I can think of several issues which might arise if this really happened. As customary, I'll post my own musings on the issues later.

Team A is awarded a goal kick. Goalkeeper A is taking the kick, with all of the other Team A players up near the halfway line. Player B1 is standing about 20 yards outside Team A's penalty area.

Goalkeeper A attempts to kick the ball far up the field, but he miskicks. The ball skids and spins along the ground, stopping just outside the penalty area.

Keeper A and B1 both charge for the ball. The goalie gets to the ball first, managing to get his foot on it. B1 gets there a step later. B1 legally takes the ball off Keeper A's foot, dribbles quickly around the keeper, and shoots the ball into Team A's goal.

And your question is? First, the ball was put into play as it cleared the penalty area. Second, the keeper touched the ball before any other player so the referee would be within Law for blowing the whistle for a second touch. Third, it sounds as if the opponent was there at virtually the same time so as long as the referee did not blow his whistle, give advantage and allow the goal for team B. If the whistle blew IDFK for Team B where keeper touched the ball outside the penalty area.

but...
isn't this a law 16 violation and not a law 12 violation? law 16 prohibits the keeper from playing the ball a second time once it is in play and before another player touches or plays the ball. law 12 only places limits on the keeper WITHIN the pa.
so, per ussf, if this is not a law 12 violation, can we apply advantage? i would say, no. you must call the illegal play by the keeper. ifk to opponents.

Ref47 is going in the direction I was thinking of. On first thought, advantage cannot be given because the keeper's second touch did not violate Law 12. The goal would have to be disallowed, and an IFK given instead (talk about a riot starting!).

Going a step further,though, (although still starting a riot!) the goalie's play on the ball could be construed as misconduct. Specifically, he denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity by means of an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.

If we follow the USSF's thinking in the thread below, the CR could give advantage since DOGSO is in Law 12. The problem is, however, that for this very minor offense the keeper would have to be sent off.

ok, we view the second touch by the keeper as a law 12 violation because it is a dgf situation and are now able to apply advantage. opponent scores; no longer a rc because a goal was not denied. downgrade to yc on the keeper.

USSF's already got themselves covered. They wouldn't say the referee was applying advantage. Rather, the keeper's second touch of the ball was trifling and so wouldn't be called. Better not try to link any misconduct into that scenario though - how could misconduct be trifling?

It sure would be easier if they just said advantage applies outside Law 12. I guess they're worried about applying advantage on bad throws or offside, or something.

I was wrong about the second touch this being Law 16. Would also have been wrong about it if Law 13 but I don't think USSF would say the touch was trifling. Trifling has to be in the minds of the players also

There was a recent conversation about a goal kick that was blown back by a heavy wind after leaving the penalty area. The keeper tried to stop the ball from going into the net and did touch it but it went in anyway. FIFA advice said to give the advantage and allow the goal. So FIFA does not restrict advantage to Law 12 and USSF says we should. That is a bigger question than this specific example.

USSF and FIFA are at odds on this. If you specifically ask those at USSF if advantage ONLY applies to Law 12 they will and have said yes. This is a huge disagreement with FIFA and, I agree, is the bigger problem. That said, where did you see this question answered with official FIFA advice we give advantage and award the goal?

Do you mean "second touch" when you say double kick? Many referees have cited examples over the years where FIFA has allowed advantage for non Law 12 violations. In the latest Interpretations they answer when a coach runs onto the field the referee does not have to stop play if 1. the coach doesn't interfere with play, which to me means his prescence was trifling OR 2. If the advantage can be applied. In a 2008 USSF Memo we are instructed that when FIFA says "advantage" for violations of Laws other tha 12 we are to interpret that as meaning trifling. This doesn't make sense when you look at page 60. It's clear to me that when FIFA says apply advantage to a coach running onto the field they mean exactly that or they'd leave out the part about his not influencing play. This is a clear example of FIFA allowing advantage for violation of Law 3. I hope sometime we see an explicit memo from FIFA regarding advantage only for Law 12 or USSF changing it's position. It's also clear that referees in other countries give advantage for violations of Laws other than 12

eteamz, a part of Active Network, LLC, is the leading Web Site building resource for parents, coaches, and league administrators. We're the biggest, we've been around the longest, so it's no surprise we've been able to help millions of teams, leagues and organizations get online. So come on, there's always room for more.